Comments on: Is It Tea Time In America? A Qualified Yeshttp://sites.middlebury.edu/presidentialpower/2010/11/03/is-it-tea-time-in-america-a-qualified-yes/
A NonPartisan Analysis of Presidential PoliticsTue, 05 Sep 2017 02:27:03 +0000hourly1https://wordpress.org/?v=4.8.2By: Dale Steinackerhttp://sites.middlebury.edu/presidentialpower/2010/11/03/is-it-tea-time-in-america-a-qualified-yes/comment-page-1/#comment-18297
Sat, 13 Nov 2010 17:09:35 +0000http://sites.middlebury.edu/presidentialpower/?p=8680#comment-18297Matthew,
Have you read David Paul Kuhn’s The Neglected Voter? He discusses the movement by white male voters away from the Democratic Party since the rise of the McGovern wing of the party.
He notes that the usual level of white male votes for Democrats in the years from 1968 through 2006 was about 38%. In an article about the 2008 election, he wrote that McCain was ahead in the polls until the bank meltdown, and argues the McCain’s response was the final straw for those in this group that might have stayed with him.
Obama got 41% of this vote and immediately moved to prove to them, against their hopes, that he supported big government and was McGovernite in his foreign policy. As would be expected, they felt misled.
Here it is important to emphasize that the reaction is not about race. Obama’s election strategy was to be someone in whom everyone could see what they wanted to see. This is a disastrous strategy for governing. You will, in you first decision, prove some of the people wrong and they will feel betrayed. The media also played a role in avoiding discussion of those relationships and statements that might have told the public who Obama really is.
The down-ticket losses for the Democrats are even more damaging. They have lost the middle of the country, both geographically and economically. But the situation is probably not much better for the Republicans. They have to eliminate the “country-club” tone of their party or something rather dramatic is likely to occur in our political party system.
To read Kuhn’s 2008 article go tohttp://www.google.com/m/url?client=safari&ei=GfWATNiXNILMNIjU_pwB&hl=en&oe=UTF-8&q=http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/01/democrats_year_less_change_tha.html&ved=0CBAQFjAA&usg=AFQjCNGZcfbgmQA2eQPTBCU8CBnWr1T4kA
]]>By: Fraz Thomashttp://sites.middlebury.edu/presidentialpower/2010/11/03/is-it-tea-time-in-america-a-qualified-yes/comment-page-1/#comment-18294
Tue, 09 Nov 2010 23:06:30 +0000http://sites.middlebury.edu/presidentialpower/?p=8680#comment-18294Yes, “patronage” was a sloppy word to choose, I just meant the ability to bring money to the district. I’m not really a huge anti-earmark guy, I just also think that, since Congressmen do have an impact on national policy, it’s probably not a great outcome when people vote for someone whose general political views they oppose because they’re dependent on the guy’s committee assignment bringing money in.

As for whether voters are more ideological or not, it seems that, regardless of how ideological the candidates are, when voters reject senior congressmen they are voting along more ideological lines. A challenger candidate can only justify his candidacy based on ideology, since seniority is so important in terms of bringing money in, so can’t you really say that, regardless of the ideological extremism of either the candidates or the voters, voters are making an ideological decision when they reject a senior congressman? Obviously there could be other factors like scandal, etc, but all things being equal.

To use a specific example, my hometown district in South Texas just voted out Solomon Ortiz, who had been our congressman for 27 years. The district is pretty blue collar and undeveloped, and probably more dependent on the money that Ortiz brought in than the typical district, so there was definitely a strong incentive to consider seniority in voting. He was also a pretty moderate Democrat, and his challenger was a relatively inoffensive (especially for this election cycle) Republican. I’m sure on any kind of partisan index, the two would not be too far apart. Still, even though there was not a gaping ideological division between the candidates, wouldn’t ideology still be the sole motivator for voting against him, considering the very concrete downside that losing that funding represents?

]]>By: Matthew Dickinsonhttp://sites.middlebury.edu/presidentialpower/2010/11/03/is-it-tea-time-in-america-a-qualified-yes/comment-page-1/#comment-18293
Tue, 09 Nov 2010 19:41:11 +0000http://sites.middlebury.edu/presidentialpower/?p=8680#comment-18293Fraz – There is evidence suggesting that elections have been more nationalized in recent years. by my calculations, 2006 was the first midterm in which national forces outweighted local ones in explaining the outcome. I haven’t made the calculations for 2010, but wouldn’t be surprised if national forces again outweighed local ones.

I’m not sure, however, that voters are voting along more ideological lines than previously. Part of the problem is that they can only vote for one of two candidates – if both candidates are drawn from the extremes of the party, it might appear that voters have become more ideological even if their preferences haven’t changed.

I assume by “patronage” you mean voting on the basis of what the Senator/Representative has brought to the district – i.e., more goodies (aka pork). Is that right?

]]>By: Fraz Thomashttp://sites.middlebury.edu/presidentialpower/2010/11/03/is-it-tea-time-in-america-a-qualified-yes/comment-page-1/#comment-18290
Tue, 09 Nov 2010 13:32:58 +0000http://sites.middlebury.edu/presidentialpower/?p=8680#comment-18290It seems like there has been a trend in recent elections of people voting along more ideological lines in Congressional races. That is, they are less likely to consider the benefits of having a committee chair as their congressman, and consider how he or she will vote on more national issues rather than what good he or she can do for the district. Is there any data backing this up, and did the trend continue with this election? Is this a good thing or a bad thing, on the whole? Even though I don´t like the outcome it produced, part of me feels like it´s better that people are voting on principle rather than patronage.
]]>By: Things That Happened, Things To Do—Week of November 1 - Middlebury Magazinehttp://sites.middlebury.edu/presidentialpower/2010/11/03/is-it-tea-time-in-america-a-qualified-yes/comment-page-1/#comment-18284
Thu, 04 Nov 2010 17:40:58 +0000http://sites.middlebury.edu/presidentialpower/?p=8680#comment-18284[…] If you are still searching for political coverage in the wake of Tuesday’s mid-term elections, Political Science Professor Matt Dickinson offers this in-depth and fascinating non-partisan analysis. […]
]]>